When I said that I can't see the UK passing a law against homosexual marriage, I think you forgot that some states in the US already passed laws or ammended constitutions or whatever it is you guys do to say "No matter what happens, you can never pass a law that allows homosexual marriage."
Or something like that. Somebody in the know correct me if I am wrong.
And Cycle, it's funny you should mention that marriage is an institution of man. Because when it comes down to it, why is that so?
Doesn't matter. All that matters is that it's an institution of man, because that is a fact. Whether it came from God is a debatable theory.
I believe that God gave the institution of marriage to us, and it started way back with Adam and Eve.
Unfortunately for you, the Mormons don't run the government. Here's the deal. Listening? Good. The government of a multicultural society has to run based on the model of having no religion, otherwise it would be unfair to those people who aren't members of that particular religion. The Canadian government has simply corrected an inconsistency in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is the guiding set of principles on which all of our laws are based.
Nearly every society that is known to have existed in the last 20,000 years has had some form of marriage. And trust me, they didn't learn it off each other. If what you're saying is true, then obviously everyone would have to believe in God as well, and would have prophets of the same God as the Jews had. Unfortunately the Hindus don't worship the same God, nor do the Buddhists, nor did the Native Americans, that is, until Columbus came along and started ramming Bibles up their asses. I think it's an instinctual constant. Like how all mammals have built-in processes to prevent inbreeding.
But Christianity existed long before Christ was born on the Earth, the Old Testament can tell you that much.
Yeah, that was back when it was called Judeaism and was an entirely different religion. Apart from a prophet or two, people didn't worship Christ before he was born.
Whether the rest of society chooses to ignore that and the other civilizations that have fallen because of their corruption of marriage and sex in general (you seem to know your history; you figure that one out), is up to society.
See, this holier-than-thou crap is one of the reasons religion isn't cool anymore.
Read more carfully, Cyc. I said concept, not invention.
Let us re-examine your quote.
...marriage is a Christian concept and thus Christians have a right to be upset about such a matter. Now, while technically this is true, one also has to take into account that these days such a thing as non-Christian marriage exists.
Translation: "marriage used to be exclusive to Christianity, but recently other religions have been joining in the fun." Your word choice (by the way, concept and invention mean the same thing) doesn't change the fact that you're full of it.
I'm well aware that other countries are likely to base their laws on the moral standing of other religions; for example upon Judaism in Israel, Islam in Iraq(?), perhaps upon Hinduism in India and so on.
That's the whole point. Canada is a multicultural society, comprised of all these and more religions. The only way to accommodate all of them is for government to operate in a purely neutral, agnostic fashion.
Sorry, what version did you look that up in?
King James version. It actually goes like this: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."
So if you're ever accused of a crime, you'll be perfectly alright about it if the witnesses lie and you end up in jail or worse. I'll remember that one.
Like you said, that kind of fits into our laws about the obstruction of justice, which are about... not obstructing justice. Nothing to do with God. Bearing False Witness Unto to Thy Neigbour in a casual way, when you're not obstructing justice, isn't going to get you hanged.
If you're going to be legalistic about it, homosexual marriage is an infringement on the right of Christians to practice their religion as they see fit.
Complete, unmitigated crap. Nobody's being forced to do anything they don't want to. A man can marry a man in a government office or in a church that'll do the ceremony. Read the law, and come back when you have a real, informed opinion on it.
As the Western cultural idea of marriage is based on the Christian concept
Not anymore. See, ever since we started recognizing the other cultures that comprise more than 50% of our country, it's a purely individual decision what religion your particular marriage is based on.
Oh, and one last thing. Maybe it was intended, maybe not, but the way in which your last post was written felt like you were deliberately trying to insult my intelligence and my belief system.
If you're talking about my scathing tone, it's something I have no intention of losing.
SS, I have to say that as much as there're hackles up on both sides here and I also sense some mutual devil's advocate behaviour, your attitude to this is very much shocking me.
Chat with me privately later if you like - I'm not looking to start a private flame war or try anything preachy: just explore opinions, since I've never, ever seen this side of you before.
Again, these are both from the Christian faith, but it wouldn't surprise me to find there are other such events from other religions that have been used in such a way.
Ummm... Not quite...
Christianity hijacked Easter from the existing pagan solstice festival of the fertility goddess Eostre (the similarity in the names is no coincidence). The positioning of Christmas wasn't wholly random, either.
Christianity may have put its own colour on the rites of spring - just as it has on the idea of marriage - but it's never had the monopoly on either, and has gradually been losing its grip on both ever since education filtered down from the upper classes and the threat of a good smiting wasn't enough to keep people in line any more...
I know that you know that marriage is a pre-Christian institution, and I'm not trying to insult you. I just think that using Easter was a bad example, since it's another concept that Christianity usurps, rather than invented.
My friendly response:
"Again, these are both from the Christian faith, but it wouldn't surprise me to find there are other such events from other religions that have been used in such a way."
Nothing is new. Indeed, a lot of Christianity as it is practised today is not actually "Christian" as it was supposed to be. When Christianity forgoed its Jewish roots (as far as festivals are concerned) and instead took on pagan stuff (that's Christmas, Easter, the whole Wiccan/Celtic calender actually), things were.. well, different.
But meaning is something that is put into something. So I would still celebrate Christmas. Just because something had a different root doesn't mean it's wrong.. just not as authentic. But meaning is derived from what things are today. I believe in focusing on the present and near future. The past is to learn, the future is to dream.
"Christianity hijacked Easter from the existing pagan solstice festival of the fertility goddess Eostre (the similarity in the names is no coincidence). The positioning of Christmas wasn't wholly random, either.
Christianity may have put its own colour on the rites of spring - just as it has on the idea of marriage - but it's never had the monopoly on either, and has gradually been losing its grip on both ever since education filtered down from the upper classes and the threat of a good smiting wasn't enough to keep people in line any more...
I know that you know that marriage is a pre-Christian institution, and I'm not trying to insult you. I just think that using Easter was a bad example, since it's another concept that Christianity usurps, rather than invented."
All true. "Christianity" as it is perceived today is a religion i.e. a set of rules, observations etc. But it wasn't meant to really be that way. Spirituality (or "life" as I prefer to put it) is something organic. We can't put God into a box. That doesn't mean there's no Truth. Truth is not relative. "truth" with a small-T is. 😛
Just check out these links if you wanna know a lil more about what I believe (for now, it's not complete yet)
Things get better.. God is slowly refining us into better people, if we allow him. I don't even want to think too much about who is saved etc. because it doesn't really matter. All I wanna do is live by God's will and that's something really way more complicated than can be explained.
Brian McLaren, a "Emergent (post-Postmodern)" thinker has a lot to say in his books "A New Kind of Christian" and "The Church On The Other Side".
www.anewkindofchristian.com/
www.emergentvillage.com/
And my own blog network: 😛
www.xanga.com/silentsoliloquy/
For me and my pals takes on practical (though messy) theology:
tmsquared.blogspot.com/
Thanks for listening/reading. 😛
Um... there's already a topic on the "morality" of homosexuality. Look for the topic with 300 posts of Jimro telling me I'm evil. 
This is about Canada approving Gay marriage. So to turn this back to topic and away from *mutters*, I think is a big leap forward for humanity. Much like our own 13th and 19th amendments were symbols of female and black rights, this is about the same for gay rights in Canada. Hopefully one day America will see through the cloud of religious radical thinking and traditionalism thats killing the separation of church and state.
~Rico (Peace can never exist unless people learn to love each other without bigotry versus age, race, gender, and sexual orientation.)
According to a local newspaper a couple of months back, gay marriages will become legal, with the local registry office taking bookings starting near Christmas. Therefore, it seems that at least my area of the UK is quite happy to allow homosexual marriage...
Yeah something I forgot. Why do all these raving anti-gay people always assume that gays would WANT to married in a church? Churches aren't the ONLY places to be married in.
Hell I'll go WITH the 'bible wavers' there and say gays SHOULDN'T be married in churches, since thats like against the faith of the church, der. But what I don't agree with is them shoving their noses out of the church doors and trying to forbay marriages that have nothing to DO with the church.
Really that was my last rant, promise. 
~Rico (Craig and I had a runaway marriage. Yeah, really! I bought the license and he ran away. *Credit to Bud and Lou*)
Quote:
...the universe does not revolve around Christianity. Hard though it may be to believe...
Quote:
...come back when you have a real, informed opinion on it.
Quote:
you're full of it.
Quote:
If you're talking about my scathing tone, it's something I have no intention of losing.
So what you're basically saying is, yes you are insulting me, my intelligence, my belief system, and you have every intention of continuing to do so. No point in me continuing to express my opinion then, even though that's what you're supposed to be able to do.
I've no intention of making any more fuss about this in this topic as it's been de-railed enough already. This'll be going to EVC instead.
~SilverShadow.
Quote:
"Remember The Sabbath Day And Keep It Holy" kind of went extinct when 7-11s started popping up.
If you're saying what I think you're saying, then that's not true:
With close to 13 million baptized members (a community of 20 million) and about a half a million new members joining each year, Seventh-day Adventism is one of the fastest growing denominations in the world?
Adventists work in 203 of the 228 countries and areas recognized by the United Nations and communicate in more than 717 languages?
Adventists run one of the largest Protestant educational infrastructures in the world, with 5,605 elementary through college-level schools worldwide? Of those, 99 are colleges and universities.
70 percent of the world's population is a potential audience for Adventist World Radio, which is recognized as a major religious shortwave broadcaster? These programs, broadcast in 55 languages, are produced in 69 different production studios around the world.
Taken from here
Quote:
that came from times long, long before Christ
Okay- maybe before Christ, but not God. I know you don't actually believe in this, but God was here before the Romans, the Vikings, the Chinese, the Eygptians and the Greeks.
Hate to say it, but this is EXACTLY why I didn't want to originally post in this topic: because anything religious can be dismissed as "non-fact" by anyone who wants to, and nobody takes the religious view that seriously except those that believe in it. While that was to be expected, I was honestly expecting a little more respect. SS and I gave our reasons for feeling the way we do. I didn't expect the entire world to accept my religion, nice as that would be, because of one post. So why should we get blasted for actually formulating thought-out posts when all we were trying to do was explain why there would be good people who would oppose gay marriage?
Granted, I shouldn't have been so confrontational. I apologize for that. But at the same time, maybe that's why there is such bipolarism on this debate: because people force each other into either one extreme position or the other, with this sort of heavy arguing. And honestly, I feel the same way SS does about Cyc's comments because frankly he's basically telling us we're wrong and he's right, which would be fine if he was just saying that about our arguments, but by doing so he is also telling us our respective religions aren't true. And that's not fair, that's not right.
(--Invalid Now--)
Abi your avatar is too big.
Quote:
If you're saying what I think you're saying, then that's not true:
I believe he was talking about western law and the general public.
Quote:
Okay- maybe before Christ, but not God. I know you don't actually believe in this, but God was here before the Romans, the Vikings, the Chinese, the Eygptians and the Greeks.
Irrelevent to the context of Cycle's original comment, and something he later addressed anyway.
Quote:
Hate to say it, but this is EXACTLY why I didn't want to originally post in this topic: because anything religious can be dismissed as "non-fact" by anyone who wants to, and nobody takes the religious view that seriously except those that believe in it. While that was to be expected, I was honestly expecting a little more respect. SS and I gave our reasons for feeling the way we do. I didn't expect the entire world to accept my religion, nice as that would be, because of one post. So why should we get blasted for actually formulating thought-out posts when all we were trying to do was explain why there would be good people who would oppose gay marriage?
Unless I missed something, nobody in this thread has been doing that.
The only two things that Cycle addressed from Silvershadow0's original post were:
1. Marriage originating as a Christian concept.
2. Laws of a large amount of countries being based on religious value systems.
I fail to see any reason for anyone to be offended by any of those two discussions. They are not even discussions on spirituality, they are discussions on history.
Quote:
And honestly, I feel the same way SS does about Cyc's comments because frankly he's basically telling us we're wrong and he's right, which would be fine if he was just saying that about our arguments, but by doing so he is also telling us our respective religions aren't true.
He wasn't telling anyone that their religions aren't true. He was saying that out of all the countless thousands of religions that exist throughout the world not one is proven fact, and as such governments of multicultural nations shouldn't look to any religion when creating its laws.
Quite a few people have gotten their wires crossed here.
I can't see any reason to take offensive at what Cycle was saying or the points he was making, only how he was saying it. And that's another topic altogether that I don't really want to get into at this moment, so I'll just say this:
1. Everyone, simmer down and try to discuss things more politely.
2. Don't look to take offense at any opportunity.
3. If you are offended, think about why you're offended, and take it to an administrator or moderator if need be.
Now everyone back on topic. Take it to EVC if you have any genuine problems.
I think it's cute when lesbians wear cute little suits when they get married. That makes me smile. 
What VCP said, saved me to the trouble of typing a big explanation that woulda just been ignored anyway.
Lee, lets get married and run away together!
~Rico
He's mine. 
Damn these homosexual love pentagons. This is getting more twisted than a Ken Penders storyline!
Hell, let's just all get married. If we're breaking the whole gay marriage thing me might aswell break into polygomy too!
Polygamy? Are you mad? The Conservative Party is already pissed off enough without adding polygamy to the fire.
I'll add polygamy to your fire, you stud. 
Oh no. Oh God no.
Will you marry me Craig? 😉
Hmmm... I've been thinking.
(Oh, God, NO!)
Well, when men marry women, the woman normally takes the man's name. But when a man marries a man or a woman marries a woman, who's gonna take whose name? Or are they gonna flip a coin or something?
=.
There's no standard thingy for that. They choose which one of them if one of them at all takes a name.
I know this issue is pretty much dead, and that it's pretty odd timing that I should be posting here again. Especially after the little fiasco that just happened. But this has been bothering me for the past two weeks. Now I feel I can post without letting my emotions get the better of me.
I would like to apologize to Cycle, first off. Not because I didn't actually feel bad about the things he said, but because he probably wouldn't have said them in the first place if I hadn't been so quick to the attack without my head on straight. Regardless of my feelings, it should have been my priority to show respect to Cycle and to everyone else involved by posting after I had simmered down.
I also apologize for skewing the topic to be something it wasn't: an attack on religion. I offer as explanation that my church and my faith are very central parts of my life, and in fact it affects virtually every part of my life, so I felt like my entire existence was being threatened. If I had thought before I posted, I would have realized that there is no threat to my faith but myself.
I would like to rectify the situation and restate the point that I was originally trying to bring in: that not everyone would believe gay marriage to be a good or right thing, and that there would be good people who would and will vote against it. Whether gay marriage is good or not, is not the point of this topic to discuss. This point was merely stating that some people have their reasons for not agreeing with this, in my case it is my religion.
Cycle, I would like to address you specifically about your comment about the "holier-than-thou" remarks that I made. I apologize for that, because by doing so I only made a fool of myself and set a bad example for the religion that I represent by being a member of it. The funny thing is, holier-than-thou attitudes are contradictory to true religion, which teaches the importance of humility and tolerance. Just because I disagreed with you did not give me any right to attack you.
So there you have it. I originally posted in this topic to support Silver Shadow, and I ended up hurting his position as well as my own. I apologize for that. Note that I'm not trying to speak for SS, I don't want to make it seem like that at all. But I owed it to myself and to my beliefs to make right what I had done wrong.
